playstationallstarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User blog:ShaunoftheRed/Characters: The More the Merrier?
Hey guys. so recently I've been figuring out the best way to construct a character roster for this game. The following rudimentary character select screen I made does not reflect this. I just made that as half my preferences, half what's realistic and just tried to make a seemingly generic fan roster for the game. However, it did get me thinking. If we look at the current Playstation allstars game we have 6 PS1 reps, 6 PS2 reps and 12 PS3 reps (if we include FP and Kat). Why the favour towards newer games? And why out of 6 entire slots for PS1 characters did we not see the ones that were most requested? Well I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that when Playstation first started they weren't doing a lot of developing. Or at least not as much as they are now. Instead, other companies saw this new console as an oppertunity to showcase their new projects instead of sticking with Nintendo or Sega. I think it's fair to say that the PS1 days heavily rely on third party. Crash, Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, FFXII, Spyro, etc, etc... So that's why that today we don't have a lot to fall back on without having to reacquire the rights to use characters from these third party games. Today, SONY are making lots of new IPs and therefore have a lot more to use. This diagram below should explain my point: If yellow represents first party characters, given that this character select screen is constructed as a vague timeline left to right, can see what I mean? (Yeah, SONY actually does own Q*bert and Lemmings :D). The right side has demonstrably more playstation than the left side, despite that side having more icons. It's weird. This is why a game like Playstation Allstars is awkward to work out. If they make the game without those icons then fans will complain and it won't sell well. If they do put in those character then A) they probably won't be able to anyway because of Activision) and B) even if they do itll cost them way too much and outweigh any need for them... from SONY's PoV. But anyway, I've taken a bit of a detour here. My question is: Is a roster measured in numbers? That's a 50 character roster up there! That rivals the new Smash AND is a significant leap from the first game. But does it need to be like that? What some people need to understand is that they're favourite characters might not get in there. They have to come to terms with the fact that characters like Ico, Tomba and Garbriel Logan may not make the cut. What about blue and green? Both third party. Blue represents third party that was already in the game so there'd be no real reason to take them out.(Except I took out Big Daddy and Isaac for obvious reasons. I also added Abe because he was planned DLC). And green represents third party characters who are best described as "Mandatory". Characters who mean so much to Playstation they almost MUST be there (Notice how they'll all at the left? ;P) So what do I mean by all this? Well if we ignore the non-coloured squares (My preferences mostly) and perhaps some of the first party because they might not want to put everyone here into the sequel (Not saying they're bound to these guys. I mean for all I know Ico, Tomba and Gabe might be characters they put in) then that's not actually that many characters. Altogether it's 39. Could be less if they don't go with that amount first party. Which is only JUST above what Brawl had. And you know what? I think this would make a pretty good game with a pretty strong roster. This could easily have only 30 characters and still be a masterpeice. That was the whole point of this blog btw. Just the idea that more does not infact mean better. It's about the characters themselves. Congratulations if you read all of this blog and I'd love to read your thoughts :P Category:Blog posts